Jump to content


Anyone else tried NC-RTS with DCA's?


OMOH
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4237 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

At the moment I am being 'chased' by Capquest for a debt I do not recognise.

 

Now I know its them, every letter I get in future I will I mark up :

No contract - return to sender. NC - RTS

 

See how many letters I can send back!

 

I do not have a contract with them! They have bought the debt : so if they have bought it - it is paid isn't it!?;)

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are third party interlopers who I have NO CONTRACT with!:D

 

You are trying to be clever without backing your self up. This could return to bite you in the backside unless you handle it properly.

 

I'm assuming you've opened the letter to know what it's about... so to return an opened letter will tell them the same. The worst scenario is that they'll just push forward with an undefended CCJ, so my advice to you would be to tell us a bit more about the debt they're chasing and deal with it properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I opened the FIRST letter from them - I did not send that one back.

 

Now I know their address which is on the back of the envelope I will send ALL subsequent letters back unopened with NC - RTS.

 

They have no contract with me.

Edited by OMOH

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to be clever without backing your self up. This could return to bite you in the backside unless you handle it properly.

 

I'm assuming you've opened the letter to know what it's about... so to return an opened letter will tell them the same. The worst scenario is that they'll just push forward with an undefended CCJ, so my advice to you would be to tell us a bit more about the debt they're chasing and deal with it properly.

 

 

He who leaves the battlefield first - surrenders.

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMOH you'd be wise to listen, exactly why did you bother to post? Nobody is impressed or even finding your actions humourous. It is against the law to avoid debt the way you are.

Why not just go down the CCA route and see what they have got, are there unfair charges or unwanted PPI.

Just be careful

I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it works for you, that's great.... but in my opinion, you could be leaving yourself wide open for trouble. You've opened the first letter and sent the rest back. I'm sure Capquest (et al) are used to this kind of thing and will now try and establish that you do in fact live where you say you don't through the electoral register and DVLA records as 2 of their primary sources.

 

This is a very different scenario from the postcard "we need to speak to you urgently about a personal matter" trick... which can/should be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since April this year Rich joined me in using the process of NCRTS against the police, the courts (including the high court), credit card companies, the DVLA, councils and many others, in fact anyone who sends us ‘paper’ through the post we do not wish to receive. The objective is very clear; we do not want to or have to contract with anyone we wish not to contract with. After serving our affidavits on the queen we instructed Elizabeth that we no longer wish to play their game and this is all we needed to do. The NCRTS process is the action needed to show that we mean what we say, i.e. walking the walk rather that just talking the talk. We said ‘NO’ and we mean ‘NO’.

 

What a load of twaddle

I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Get a Life' comes to mind :confused:

Every journey begins with a single step :):)

 

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area - my advice is learned from the wonderful members of this Forum. Thanks to you all for your help.

 

If you have found my post helpful please leave a short message by clicking the star to the left of my profile - Thank You

 

The only person entitled to your Personal Finance details is a Judge not a DCA

 

Move all banking activity to another banking group if you have a dispute - your funds can be used to offset debts within the same group.

Be careful with Banking details (card/account numbers) as these can be used to take unauthorised payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We instructed Elizabeth?!!" OMG, give me strength!... :rolleyes:

 

:D

 

The idea is they are using the Magna Carta 1215, section 61. What they are doing is referred to now as Lawful Rebellion, although MC1215 does not use that specific phrase. MC1215 sec 61 allows for a petition to the Queen for redress of grievances concerning her government; she is allowed 40 days to sort the problems out. After 40 days, if the grievances remain, people can withdraw allegience from the Queen and all those acting on her behalf, which means we can lawful refuse to co-operate with all those claiming authority, including courts, police, tax people etc.

 

Sec 61 speaks of 5 barons petitioning the queen, but sec 1 says all rights in MC are extended to all freemen. "freeman" means those who are not "villeins" or serfs.

 

In "The Rule of Law" (p10) Judge Tom Bingham says the Magna Carta was annulled (repealed) by the pope after a few months. But then the pope's authority to do this could be questioned. There is a lot of room for argument on this, but IMO it's really off-topic for CAG, it's better leave that discussion on TPUC.:)

 

Just thought a very short background on this might be of interest to some.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

priority one,

 

I'm sure Capquest (et al) are used to this kind of thing and will now try and establish that you do in fact live where you say you don't through the electoral register and DVLA records as 2 of their primary sources.

 

I'd like to clarify one thing, not to endorse this as it often does lead to trouble, just to explain.

 

OMOH is not saying "I don't live here" or "Moved away" etc.

 

NC-RTS is "NO CONTRACT" return to sender. It's more like saying "Get lost I'm not having anything to do with you." It is based on the idea that the DCA has no contract with you and you won't contract with them by talking to them, writing to them, or otherwise. Make of that what you will. Threads like this usually result in arguments even on tpuc, and I'm not going be drawn in. I just didn't want to see the topic misunderstood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I am being 'chased' by Capquest for a debt I do not recognise.

 

Now I know its them, every letter I get in future I will I mark up :

No contract - return to sender. NC - RTS

 

See how many letters I can send back!

 

I do not have a contract with them! They have bought the debt : so if they have bought it - it is paid isn't it!?;)

 

Have they really bought it?

 

If so, they will have a "deed of assignment." If they have this and it has been done properly, then they do own the debt and they can sue you on it. The "It's been paid" argument won't stand in court.

 

Personally I would suggest you start a new thread and post up some details. If you scan the CCA and deed of assignment etc, as well as any default notices you might find you can win quite easily if they've made mistakes.

 

People on CAG are very helpful and they know a hell of a lot. If you want a new idea to gain respect on here, you will have to back it up with sound legal reasoning.

 

P.S. I would recommend a basic contract law book such as nutshells.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...